Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 874 de 957
The transferability of the PSVT:R and the MCT for Measuring and Predicting Student
3D CAD Modelling Abilities
Heidi M. Steinhauer
steinhah@erau.edu
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach
United States of America
Abstract: Engineering graphics is a fundamental skill required for students to
be successful engineers; in the past, a year-long, two-course sequence was
devoted to teaching the skills of spatial visualization and hand sketching. Today
most engineering programs allot a single semester to teaching both the hand
sketching component of engineering graphics and the application of a 3D solid
modeling program. Therefore, it is critical for faculty to be efficient in their
delivery of course material while still ensuring that students are learning and
understanding the key concepts. Two of the better known assessment tools in
engineering graphics research are: the PSVT:R, the Purdue Spatial Visualization
Test: Rotations and the MCT, the Mental Cutting Test. While both of these tests
have been used to predict a student’s success with spatial visualization and hand
sketching neither have been used to predict a student’s success with the
development of 3D solid models. This paper focuses on the transferability of the
PSVT:R and the MCT in predicting and measuring a student’s 3D modeling
abilities.
Context and Purpose Statement
In 2000, ABET, (originally named Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology), issued
its revised objectives for the accreditation of undergraduate engineering programs. These
revised objectives required a fundamental shift from a numerical list of minimums (i.e.
number of hours teaching, number of PhD faculty in department, etc.) to an open list of
objectives that each institution could then tailor to their specific programs. Institutions are
also now required to provide assessments that “identify, collect, and prepare data to
evaluate the achievement of program outcomes and program educational outcomes” (p. 2)
(ABET, 2009). Program education objectives are the overarching statements that define
the career and professional achievements expected of the program graduates, and
program objectives are the more narrowly defined descriptions of what students are
expected to know and be able to do by graduation – the skills, knowledge, and behaviors
acquired (ABET, 2009). Institutions are to formatively evaluate the data and evidence
generated by the assessments to continuously improve their programs.
The four ABET 2000 outcomes that directly relate to the freshman graphical
communication class are:
a. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
b. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
c. an ability to communicate effectively
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011